Because I'm in the reading room:

I figured when I read a good article, I would comment on it.

Obama Calls for Expansion of Faith Program - N.Y. Times
I agree with most of the sentiments in this article, especially the quote from President Obama. The question I have is: will people, especially fundamentalist leaders of all religions see to this point? A lot of fundamentalists (and some non-) believe that the real message of their prophet/God/whatever is not necessarily love and tolerance and comfort, but one of evangelization and promoting their religion over any other.

Honestly, I think, as a Catholic, that we're doing a pretty good job of staying away from that message. (I don't mean to ruffle feathers, but it's the truth.) I feel like a lot of Catholics now-a-days, either to promote a message of peace and love and Jesus all at the same time, would rather simply do good deeds. I feel like one day, when I'm doing good deeds and someone asks me why I do them and how I find strength that I say "Jesus and God" and that my good deeds, good attitude, and compassion would show the true strength of Jesus and religion. I hope I never slam religion in someone's face.

Anyway...I didn't even know we had a Faith Office! How interesting! Doesn't that, though, defeat the State vs. Religion statement in the constitution? Which is kind of a big deal, right? I think as long as no religion is promoted over another one then it would be alright though. I think Obama wants all religion equal, given equal money (or at least fair money) to all, etc. Which I think, does not break the bounds of Government vs. Religion.


I don't have audio on this computer, but this looks hilarious: The District - Obama's First 100 days.


Side note about goals for myself: remembering the names of people's articles that I read. I was at an NIF yesterday here at school discussing healthcare and it seemed like a couple people were just throwing around these names. I really need to read more CNN/Times/etc. and get a hang of these names! Maybe that's what I'll do on Fridays. Just read papers...all day long!


This article, near the end, talks about the bailed-out companies making a "mockery of taxpayers." I must say, I agree. I am happy about what Obama did, though I think it should be heightened even more. He decided that senior executives could only make $500,000 a year at one of the bailed-out Wall-Street companies (favorite line in this article: "I’m going to guess that if top employees of teetering banks aren’t willing to work for reduced pay, there’s a long line of people who would happily take their place. Go ahead – make their day: walk away from the executive chambers"). That still seems like a lot, to me. I am glad the lower-downs aren't being punished. But what more could he do? I think he could mandate somehow that certain things could not be done for a certain amount of time (like until they paid back the government?) such as the grand parties and conferences the article references. Though I am partially libertarian, there are times when companies (such as these) need a little spanking. Or a big one.

However, this article makes good counterarguments. Why $500,000? Why not $300,000? That makes sense. This is a reactionary response, but at the moment, I think it's needed to calm the American people as well as to teach big businesses that try to over-step their bounds, that they can have legislation passed against them. I do agree with Ms. Fiorina that CEO salaries should be trasnparent and available for all to see. Maybe, like all government workers, business should share what their hightest employees make in a single year, and the government should know exactly what it's being spent on? Does privledge like these businessmen possess need to have a watch-dog on it? Does it come with certain "obligations"?


I just re-read some Radical Feminist views on Firefly. It just makes me want to re-watch the series. Am I trained by the patriarchy?

In the Libertarian side of things, I agree with this article's take on the Carbon Tax. It makes sense to me, that when companies purchase carbon credits, and if they -or another company- goes over that limit, they must pay a heavy fine, will do a lot to stimulate the economy. Or at least help it progress in a Green direction. However, I think Obama pushing Green (though it may turn into pork - which I hate) is not a bad idea either.

Is this enough for now?